Linux-Advocacy Digest #988, Volume #34 Tue, 5 Jun 01 17:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: The nature of competition (Fred K Ollinger)
Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?) (GreyCloud)
Re: Linux is shit (GreyCloud)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (Bob Hauck)
Re: UI Importance (Woofbert)
Re: UI Importance (Woofbert)
Re: UI Importance (Woofbert)
Re: UI Importance (Woofbert)
Re: UI Importance (Woofbert)
Re: SourceForge hacked! (Kai Henningsen)
Re: SourceForge hacked! (Kai Henningsen)
Re: SourceForge hacked! (Kai Henningsen)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Fred K Ollinger)
Subject: Re: The nature of competition
Date: 5 Jun 2001 20:28:16 GMT
: Hmmm... but I think most of the development effort is centered around KDE
: and/or Gnome at this point.
But that doesn't mean you are locked into one of those wms. Which alternate
wm do you like for windows? How easy was it to install?
: > > I don't know - I think you are stating this because Windows won and
: Linux
: > > lost. If Linux had won, you'd be touting how MindCraft ROCKz and all.
: > The general feeling (imho) is that 'benchmarks' are too succeptable to
: > 'fudging', and their results of dubious benefit anyway.
If you need the best, they might matter but only when you benchmark what
you are doing. So best to benchmark yourself w/ you setups.
MS beat apple b/c people thought that win was 'good enough'. Linux is in
that same place now. Good enough, but less expensive.
: And NT was clearly the leader in most benchmarks, and slightly ahead in the
: others.
How do they do in price/performance ratio?
: hehe. Well, I wouldn't even mention them at all except that I constantly
: hear from Linvocates that Linux is x% faster than W2k or whatever.
That would be something seeing as the cost is 100% less. :)
: In my experience, I find W2k just as fast in visually perceptive tasks...
: and faster in GUI operations. I rely on benchmarks from *3rd* parties to
Which gui? I use black box. I would probably use windows if more if blackbox
was a default install.
: give me insight as to the relative performance of both.
Not really. I think things like disk copying on old pcs, the whole thing will
lock up until copy is over while in linux, it's perceptively superfast. I don't
have the same experience at all, I'm afraid.
: I will say that two applications I developed at work run without performance
: problems (w2k)... the main bottleneck is the WAN.
Same could be said for linux. So the only thing we have to go on is price.
: No need to apologize :) But I have seen posts from many users that Netscape
: will crash, or even cause a panic now and then.
Did this happen to you or are you quoting others? I never had a panic from ns.
Also, which ver of ns? Which kernel ver. How long did this take to fix?
: I too have had a panic in Linux, but not from Netscape. (I use RedHat 7.0)
I have too. How often were yours?
: > >> > W2k has, in my experience on many systems, proven to be very stable.
: > >> Tell us again how stable it is, when Microsoft replace it with a
: 'better
: > >> more stable Windows', just like they did with Win3.11, Win95, Win89,
: WinME
: > >> etc, ad nauseum.
: > >
: > > Excuse me. I have *never* stated that the 9x generation was *good* or
: even
: > > *ok*.
: > I actually found Win95 to be 'ok', but I was pointing out how every MS OS
: > is first touted as 'stable' till its successor, which is always touted as
: > 'more stable' etc.
: Well, 95 may have been more stable than 3.1, I don't know. Like I said, I
: steered clear from the DOS platforms except for DOS games.
I have actually heard that win 95 was LESS stable than win 3.1. Don't have
much experience. Apple's oses were getting LESS stable since system 7.5.
: > > Personally, I think it is all crap (good for some things) but as an OS,
: it
: > > is crap. OK?
: > I actually was quite at home with Win95, it being a huge improvement over
: > Win3.11, so I wouldn't say that all Ms products are crap.
In which way? Stability or a prettier gui. I think win 95 looks like shit,
but that's just me.
: I am only "pro-MS" when I need to be to counter extreme FUD from the other
: side.
You should be paid for this.
: If Linux had a well put together API for all systems (including something
: like DirectX), I'd be far more in tune with Linux.
You can help with this.
: Check out the security bulletins and patches for RedHat Linux on their
: website.
: They may not be well publicized (everybody likes to pick on MS now), but
: Linux does have security problems.
But they are very well publicized. In fact, you can download and find them
in the kernel. This is the linux model. They _want_ people to find them
so they can get better. W/ MS, it's the opposite. They lie about problems
or downplay them.
: > > Most hackerz want to target *windows* platforms because they hate MS.
: Not
: > > because Windows is more or less secure.
Why would they hate MS. Could there be a reason for this? This in itself
should make one question MS. I haven't hated them for a long time. I just
use what I like and don't care. Then we had all these people mouthing
MS FUD. Really pissed me off, how they get people to market their product
when they have no financial interest, and these people don't know
much about computers, they can't even maintain a windows system. Linux
people seem to know enough to get by in windows. I can admn win, mac and
linux. I prefer linux from my experiences.
: > >> > Who knows what vunerabilities are in Linux because nobody is really
: > > trying
: > >> > to find them... or are *they* ?
: > >> Every cracker in the world is, as usual.
It should be easier to find b/c they have the source in front of them. So
why not more hacks if this way is insecure as MS claims? There are hacks
and worms, but not many.
: > Unless you have a log, that records all ICMP/ARP, and tcp/ip data, you
: cant
: > know whats happening to your box, whilst on-line?
There are logger for windows. Install one.
: > >> > COM
: > >> > objects allow me to pick and choose the tools I need, and they
: integrate
: > >> > into any part of the OS, or any applications.
How does this help you debug code later? I tried to use tools to make
sw, but I didn't understand the code that was being made for me. I like
to do it from hand b/c it's faster.
: > > Most UNIX/Linux developers wouldn't grasp how great this is until
: they've
: > > used it.
: > Possibly, but then we would have to abandon the OS of our choice, and who
: > wants to do that ?
Tell me where to download these tools and I'll try them out.
This is the first time I'm told that win is better b/c of development tools.
Usually I'm told that this is just for 'hackers and hobbiests'. Is win2k being
targeted at hackers and hobbiests? If so then it's not ready for the
desktop and will always be a niche os. I'm taking this right out of MS
playbook. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
: But the OS should be chosen on how well it provides for applications as
: well... and I believe the W2k platform is superior in *this* regard.
: > By the same token have you tried Glade, or Visual TCL ?
: No. I've looked around, and I find a lot of people using the GNU stuff...
: command line tools.
We have gui tools, but prefer cli b/c once you learned it, it's faster and
easier. People see me use cli almost soley ON THE DESKTOP, and they think
linux is hard. Then I show them windows interface. They can't even handle
how the back button is changed in opera. Such is the weakening of their minds
due to years of gui. Gui make you stupid.
: But dragging and dropping objects and editing them in place in *any* dev.
: tool is pretty advanced stuff... and it works.
Advanced in what way. At work we have gui tools, but I make cli tool
which does hundreds of samples at a time. I type three letters and they
drag and drop for days. What's more advanced? I'd rather be more efficient,
but if you consider eye-candy to be advanced then I can never convince you
of anything. This is the same metality that chooses a car solely on the merits
of the pretty colors offered. Give me a car that doesn't break down in one
color, thank-you.
: > > Linux development tools are archaic and don't come close to what even MS
: > > offers for Win32 development...
: > This is easy to say, but are you really in aposition to say it ?
I don't know. I read a book on visual c++ and thought the devel tools were
stupid. I just wanted to learn c++ code, not learn to do things the MS
way. If you know c++ then you have learned enough to write for any os.
If you learn how to depend on slick looking tools then you are 0wned by MS.
These are the people who fear linux b/c it will show them up for what they
really are. Moving things around in a gui is NOT computer knowledge.
: In fact, I find that most Linux users prefer more 'old' style ways (not that
: they are bad) of developing, such as using lower level languages,
: "hand-coding" things, etc.
I wonder why. Maybe b/c it works well.
: I too like that, but for larger projects (for other people), I need to get
: stuff done quickly and under budget.
: And that usually means a MS platform (for better or worse).
How does spending all this money before you even get computer out of box
and fancy tools that only work on one os save you money? You've been conned.
: > >> Linux tools are free.
: > >
: > > True, but when you are developing a multimillion dollar system, a few
: > > thousand in development tools is like ordering a few cups of coffee
: > > everyday.
: > Definetly, no argument there.
But if you need to install this on hundreds of desktops then the price of os
starts to add up.
: > > Fine... some people also still code in Assembler.
: > I don't, as Linux has a excellent C compiler for my microprocessor
: > of choice, SDCC.
: C compilers are certainly in abundance for UNIX/Linux... but what about
: stuff that makes writing applications faster and more efficient (in terms of
: man hours)?
libraries are also abundant.
: I mentioned Assembler, because you *could* program in Assembler, but why not
: use C?
: Sure, C is slower than Assembler, but it gets the programming job done
: faster -> just like using higher level tools makes writing applications
: faster than coding them in straight C.
like java? we have java with linux.
: > > And MS allows you to
: > > develop stuff in a greatly reduced time period.
They have eaten some of these projects as well and integrated them into os.
Wish I knew the url for this site which lists them.
: The C is certainly OK, if not the better choice.
: > >> > But timing is everything in big projects,
: > >> Agreed.
No it's also good to be cross platform and to have a stable platform. Stable
means you won't need to do major recoding later.
: > > If you have a problem with their products, depending on the service
: level
: > > (usually good if you are working on big projects), you could have an
: expert
: > > at your door the next day to help debug the solution.
: > Thats always a very handy thing. I live in Australia, I doubt MS would
: have
: > a rep at my door, to do what your Ms reps do ?
: There are MS reps. there. Trust me on that :)
You are lying. I had troubles with my computer and never got help from os.
Only from oem. Oem does MS's dirty work.
: > > Try to get that with Linux or the other 'free' development tools that
: just
: > > don't have centralized service.
: > I can email the authors of any tools that I have a problem with, and
: > they usually answer within a day. Ymmv.
In fact, often the developer will talk to you. When was the last time you
chatted with Bill Gates?
: Well, that's pretty good then. I was really talking about someone that knew
: the OS inside and out, and you can get OS support very quickly from MS
: (again, if you have the contract).
Most MS people don't know OS inside and out. You can't even read the source
w/o signing your life away. Many linux people have read source and will help
you if you do enough work on your own as to not waste their time. I'm afraid
you picked the wrong issue here. Microsoft is eternally playing catch-up
in terms of educating people about their os internals. Source code wasn't
available until recently. It's still not completely available. You can
set up a MS machine and learn nothing even if you have trouble, I rarely
learn anything by doing things the MS way. Linux teaches you about computers
almost all I learned I learned from using linux.
: Well, many Linadvocates.
It's fun.
Fred
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The usual Linux spiel... (was Re: Is Open Source for You?)
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 13:30:46 -0700
Stephen Edwards wrote:
>
> Seven rabid koala bears with eucalyptus spittle dribbling from their
> mouths told me that [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jan Johanson) wrote in
> <3b1c5039$0$2604$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Jan Johanson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> >> > > > Besides, If you had the kind of experience with UNIX
> >> > > > that you seem to pretend to have, you'd understand
> >> > > > why the Linux kernel is completely substandard.
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> > > Then you better tell the CEO of IBM that Linux is substandard
> >> > > because they just dumped an awful lot of money into getting linux
> >> > > to run on their mainframes. :-)
> >> >
> >> > Oh, I see, so Linux=good because a lot of money was spent modifying
> >> > it
> >to
> >> > run on some once-upon-a-time-evil-empire's hardware?
> >> >
> >> > So, the $2 billion in R&D MS spends yearly on Windows, being greater
> >than
> >> > the <$1 billion IBM has spent pretty much helps confirm that
> >Windows>Linux -
> >> > is that what you meant?
> >>
> >> Not at all. IBM is more efficient than microsoft and I know quite a
> >> few of their employees... gawd I sure wouldn't want to get under an
> >> MRI made by Microsoft!
> >
> >I know both IBM employees (ex-father-in-law) and Microsofties - IBM is
> >much much MUCH less effieicent by several orders of magnitude. I sure
>
> You don't even really have to know anyone
> from either camp to know that IBM has a lot
> more overhead than Microsoft. It's just a
> known fact. The IBM way has always been
> overkill, to say the least.
>
> They wouldn't have designed the original
> PC the way that they did, if they didn't
> have so much overhead to deal with.
>
>
When you deal in military systems you always have a high overhead...
mainly due to the need of large human resources. These designs are
original and take lots of money and time. One other factor is once they
start production of say 10 or 20 units of whatever hardware they also
have to produce enough spare parts to last the projected hardwares
lifespan. And this takes a logistics system that can track where those
parts are. None of this comes by cheaply. Once you run out of those
spare parts its very costly to shop around for some company that is
willing to tool up and manufacture those parts.
The original PC was put into the hands of one man...(can't remember his
name as he died in a plane wreck).
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is shit
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 13:40:21 -0700
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> >> blimey.
> >>
> >> Cool printer. What resolution does it do?
> >
> > Only 600*600 ;-)
>
> Only! LOL! 600x600 laser printouts are always better than 600x600 inkjet
> printouts coz the ink doesn't spread. And I'm still using an HP500
> (300x300).
>
Try a newer HP inkjet, like a 900 series. I read in todays news that HP
had to settle with Pitney-Bowes for $400M for patent infringement on the
way they get inkjets to print like laser printers.
> > and at 10 pages a minute.
>
> grrrr.
>
>
> > Theyre an old printer Ed, also known as a Gestetner GLL1000 in
> > Australia, they have the option of a plug in Postscript module (I have
> > 3) and additional ram.
> >
> > They have a LCD display and 8 menu buttons on the front, top or front
> > paper output, front loading paper tray, and envelope facility.
> >
> > Toner cartridges include the drum and are avail new or re furbished
> > ($150 aus) and will do 7000 to 9000 pages.
> >
> > I bet you could find then secondhand in the UK. Mine were purchased from
> > a guy who bought 25 at an auction. The previous owner was a mining
> > company.
>
> I think I'm going to look out for one of these, they look very nice. Of
> course, I'd ideally like an HP4550, but its a little out of my price
> range :-/
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> (You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
>
> /d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
> r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
> d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
--
V
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Reply-To: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 20:44:03 GMT
On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 13:31:47 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It is highly doubtful that MS will write a .NET client for Linux. It is
> > nearly as doubtful that they will publish enough of a spec for a third
> > party to make a client that is 100% compatible with the Windows one.
>
> They have already published such a spec, and MS has already said that a
> Linux client was coming.
They have a spec for the language runtime, but not for all of the
support services that will be needed to make a useful application.
Regarding the Linux client, I simply don't believe them. If they were
serious about supporting Linux, they would have already ported something
besides the Frontpage Server Extensions.
> > On top of that, it is doubtful that developers will avoid the tempation
> > to use unmanaged code to begin with.
>
> This will make porting easier, since they don't have to port the managed
> portion, only the unmanaged portion.
Maybe porting will be easier than with all native code, but it'll still
need porting which cuts down the number of apps that will actually get
ported.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 20:44:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Just like we do in the GUI.
>
> In a GUI there is no discipline, you just put thing where you want.
There is no built-in discipline for where to put files in either style
of interface.
Proof: Windows can run GUI as well as CLI, and both have facilities that
allow you to thoroughly hose your filesystem.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 20:46:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Jun 2001 22:44:43 -0600, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >On 4 Jun 2001 22:10:02 -0500, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>To you perhaps but not to most people. In fact, using a mouse is
> >>proven to be much faster and much more accurate than typing.
> >
> >Depends. For example:
> >
> > mkdir \progra~1\irfanview
> > cd \progra~1\irfanview
> > pkunzip \download\iview336.zip
> > dir
> > iview
>
> And if you were using tab complete you could quarter that time.
And if you were using a GUI, you'd merely doubleclick on the installer
icon. }:-b
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 20:48:24 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 07:57:18 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> You seem to think that the CLI is more than the average user can deal
> >> with. Don't forget that MS got their start selling a CLI operating
> >> system (DOS) to people who had never used a computer before. These
> >> newbies learned to format and partition HD's, install and configure
> >> drivers, juggle TSR's and applications in limited RAM, write batch
> >> files, and deal with umpteen different text-based programs each with
> >> its own UI and quirks (and printer drivers).
> >
> >People will learn only just as much as they absolutely have to. In DOS'
> >days, they had to learn all of that in order to use a computer.
> >Today, they don't.
>
> They didn't HAVE to then, but doing so severely increased their
> efficiency, and decreased their dependency on PC World every time
> something went wrong.
The class of people who bought Apple II, CP/M, and later DOS computers
is a subset of people who buy computers today. Macintosh, and later
Windows, brought computing to people who otherwise would not use
computers.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 20:51:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 04:05:01 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> >> >Selecting some pictures based on names out of 100s is much more
> >> >tedious. Especially when the names: A> has no pattern. B> doesn't
> >> >have a clear name.
> >>
> >> If you were dealing with pictures you'd be in a GUI anyway.
> >> Anyway, supposing the thumnail doesn't give a clear indication of
> >> what it's about? And why don't you name your files clearly?
> >
> >Then text, no naming scheme that has pattern. You can pick the files
> >in the GUI, you'll have to type them, on by one, on the CLI.
>
> The first couple of letters and a tab usually works for me. How do
> you pick them on a GUI anyway? What are the keys to move a file to
> the floppy?
I think you are missing the entire point!
With a GUI, you click-drag an icon representing a file to another icon
representing either a directory, a mountable volume, or a list of files
to be deleted. Demanding to use the keyboard in a GUI is like having a
CLI but demanding to use the switches-and-lights interface to input your
own file-delete program.
What? Your computer doesn't have a switches-and-lights interface? And
you call yourself a real programmer! }: )
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
From: Woofbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 20:52:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, drsquare
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 03:58:36 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
> >> Compare that to a GUI, where you don't even get any options, you just
> >> get what you're given, unless of course you want to go editing
> >> shorcuts to put some arguments in, or using some shoddy built in
> >> configuration tool. Personally, I like complete control over what I'm
> >> doing with my command.
> >
> >What options do you get on the CLI that aren't given you?
>
> Arguments. Pipes. Redirection. Command history
Granted, those are wonderful cool ways to combine little programs to do
cool things which no GUI I know of has found a way to do, but they are
not parameters to individual programs or functions.
--
Woofbert: Chief Rocket Surgeon, Infernosoft
email <woofbert at infernosoft dot com>
web http://www.infernosoft.com/woofbert
------------------------------
Date: 05 Jun 2001 22:15:00 +0200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen)
Subject: Re: SourceForge hacked!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edward Rosten) wrote on 03.06.01 in <9fbobk$d7d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >>> >>What's a dalsehood?
> >>> >
> >>> >typo(-d +f), presumably.
> >>>
> >>> How can you do that? They're on opposite sides of the keyboard.
> >>
> >>d & f ? They are right next to each other in QWERTY keyboard.
> >
> > Who said I had a qwerty keyboard?
>
> No one. They said that dalsehood was typed by someone with a querty
> keyboard (fairly likely).
What do you have against qwertz keyboards? And I suspect (but dont know)
that azerty keyboards are also similar.
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
Date: 05 Jun 2001 22:18:00 +0200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen)
Subject: Re: SourceForge hacked!
Incidentally ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Edward Rosten) wrote on 03.06.01 in <9fbobk$d7d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> /d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5
> -1 r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0
> rmoveto}for/s 15 d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for
> showpage
Error: rangecheck in /roll
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
Date: 05 Jun 2001 22:14:00 +0200
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen)
Subject: Re: SourceForge hacked!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (drsquare) wrote on 03.06.01 in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, 03 Jun 2001 00:12:30 +0100, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >Are you trying to end up in everyone's kill file along with Kookis?
>
> Yep.
Glad to be of service. *plonk*
Kai
--
http://www.westfalen.de/private/khms/
"... by God I *KNOW* what this network is for, and you can't have it."
- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 21:00:47 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3b1d3fa5$0$94306$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> > It's really not as hard as Rick is making it. :D
>
> There really is no hard-coded dependency in NT
> for little or big endian. You could write a big
> endian HAL and it'd work just fine. The problem
> is with the apps. Many apps have dependencies
> (although they shouldn't) on big or little endian.
It's not a HAL thing, but it's not exactly just
apps either; a lot of OS stuff keeps data in
binary formats that break if you switch endianness.
These parts of the OS could be modified
to do the right rearrangements at the right
times as part of a port, but having to do this
would make porting significantly harder.
Of course, this is Microsoft- the line between
apps and OS isn't necessarily clear. :D
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
